R v Egan

The case of R v Egan involved the respondent who was convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 10 years. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that it was inadequate. The respondent had communicated an apology to the victim prior to any complaint being made to police or disclosure to the family. The sentencing judge imposed a non-parole period of 18 months imprisonment with an additional term of 18 months in each case, with the sentences to be served wholly concurrently. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge erred in failing to partially accumulate the sentences, in having regard to the respondent’s protective status in custody, and in considering the sentences to be manifestly inadequate.

The court considered the legal issues of whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to partially accumulate the sentences, in having regard to the respondent’s protective status in custody, and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The court held that the sentencing judge erred in not partially accumulating the sentences, as the statutory provisions required the sentences to be partially accumulated. The court also held that the sentencing judge erred in having regard to the respondent’s protective status in custody, as this was not a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. The court further held that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, as they did not reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The court remitted the matter to the sentencing judge to resentence the respondent. The court made observations as to the treatment by the sentencing judge of the issue of the duration of offending, noting that it was not appropriate to reduce the sentence on that basis. The court also made observations as to the finding of the sentencing judge that special circumstances were established justifying a variation between the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence, noting that such a variation was not appropriate in this case. The court did not make any final orders in this appeal, as the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge for resentencing.